Interestingly, I consider that a fair equilibrium. Not something to despair over. I think it would be worse if the director of the CIA could keep privacy but not random individual. That power does not affect ability to avoid lack of privacy means things are becoming more balanced.
Yes, I'd say privacy is actually much more of a problem for the elite. How many investigations dig up infidelity, etc, in the normal population and then carefully step around it instead of enlarging the investigation?
But I do think the power elite are driven by excessive compulsions, and I worry if we eliminate the ones with relatively normal/outside compulsions we will be left with the Machiavellian freaks running everything.
Fair equilibrium? Perhaps anyone can be incriminated, but access to the incriminating evidence is anything but balanced. Remember, he was tracked by the FBI, not some ordinary Joe.
